Opinions on the Roland C.II?

[Hauksbee 103]

I flew my first campaign mission with FA(A) 203 with five Roland C.II's in the Verdun front. It was a straight out-and-back recon with 20 min. spent over the target area. I found the Roland to be unflyable. I know it was considered difficult in real life, but a lot of that was in the landing. They were famous for 'stubbing a toe' and flipping upside down. My problem was in keeping it flying straight and level. It wallowed. It constantly wanted to slew back and forth. Not quite a stall, but would have become one if I hadn't been correcting...constantly. If I lifted the nose upwards in the slightest, it got worse, so the price I paid was a steady loss of altitude. Finally I was on the ground, bumping and lurching forward and still at full throttle. Why WOFF didn't think I had crashed, I can't say. If that wasn't odd enough, my altimeter (F5) still said I was at 700 ft. Has anyone else tried the C.II and had problems?

[corsaire31 7]

I have flown many hours in the Roland C2 in OFF and Rise of Flight, not yet in WOFF. I like the plane which is fast for its time and can defend itself in a dogfight if under attack, only problem is the climb rate. (and the bad forward visibility on the ground)

 

You have to climb slowly so that the speed doesn't drop too much otherwise (in Rise of Flight) it starts "floating" from left to right and you need to apply constant corrections, which breaks speed even more. When I feel this "floating" I immediately push the nose down to regain speed (even if I loose a little altitude) and start climbing again. The game is to find the "sweet spot" at the ideal climbing speed, which requires some concentration.

[Hauksbee 103]

I've managed to keep a C.II airborne in RoF, but have never landed it successfully, so I thought I'd have a go in OFF. The 'float' was so bad that I crashed three times. On take-off. Obviously, this is not the plane for me.

[JimAttrill 24]

Apparently the fuselage was made of two layers of plywood strips at an angle to each other.  Rather like the Mosquito of WWII fame.  It was reputed to be rather hard to fly but fast for its time.  Maybe the WOFF aircraft is correct in its handling...

[shredward 12]

There is a reason for its name......

Cheers

Shredward

[Olham 164]

Otto Fuchs crashed his "Walfisch" too at takeoff.

He wrote, that the craft had it's own character, and that you had to understand,

what input it wanted, before you could fly it successfully.

So she wanted to be rolled over gently.

Feeling, gentlemen, feeling... Imagine she's a lady!

Edited March 7, 2014 by Olham

[corsaire31 7]

I've managed to keep a C.II airborne in RoF, but have never landed it successfully, so I thought I'd have a go in OFF. The 'float' was so bad that I crashed three times. On take-off. Obviously, this is not the plane for me.

As for myself, I never had too many problems landing, except touching from time to time with the lower wing on some bad airfields. On take off in RoF, specially if you are carrying bombs, you need to be light on fuel (60% is OK as you can fly 5 hours with a full tank) and not hesitate to taxi to the other end of the field if necessary to make sure you take off into the wind (same with landing, always into the wind - but that goes in general for all two seaters) 

Tip for taxi in RoF : you have a thermometer view with "." + "7" on the keypad which brings a front view over the top wing.

Edited March 7, 2014 by corsaire31

[JimAttrill 24]

How can you tell which way the wind is blowing?  Look around for a windsock? 

[corsaire31 7]

How can you tell which way the wind is blowing?  Look around for a windsock? 

My post was about flying the Roland C2 in RoF where you have windsocks showing the wind. You can also read the mission briefing !

Edited March 8, 2014 by corsaire31

[Olham 164]

You can also read the mission briefing !

Yupp - it even tells the wind speed.

[rjw 48]

Yupp - it even tells the wind speed.

And the direction it is coming from in the briefing as well.

[JFM 18]

Hauksbee, I never had anything like you describe with the Walfisch. Most odd! Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, you were over gross weight.

 

Regarding the altimeter. Airplane altimeters read the altitude above mean sea level, which is known as true altitude. We don't set altimeters in WOFF, but you adjust them to the known air pressure and the resultant display is the altitude above sea level. Thus, with an altimeter set to the known air pressure, it would read approx 195 meters/640 feet while the airplane was sitting on the ground at an airfield in Verdun. If you don't know the air pressure, you just adjust the altimeter to read the known elevation above sea level. Thus, in this Verdun example, if you want to fly 1000 feet above the ground (AGL, or above ground level, also known as absolute altitude) you would climb until the altimeter read 1640 feet. You'd be at 1640 feet above sea level, but the land itself rises 640 feet above sea level, and thus you'd be 1000 feet above the land. Clear as mud?

 

Mind you, this is based on personal flying. I am not an expert on WW1 altimeters and they may not have been adjustable; I just don't know right now unless I delve into it. Still, although I don't know where you landed, since you were near Verdun, 700 feet sounds about right. 

BTW, didn't the airplanes in OFF used to change locations on the airfield, based on the direction of the wind? For instance, one mission you may go to start the mission and find the planes linedup on the west side fo the field to takeoff to the east, and on another mission find them lined up on the east side of the field to takeoff to the west. I haven't seen that yet in WOFF. In any event, if there is a big wind I'll taxi to takeoff into it, and I always come back and land into it, regardless of takeoff direction.